Re: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence
On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 8:39 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: From: Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net God can be thought of as cosmic intelligence And if humans are the only intelligence in the cosmos (and they might be) then the human race is God. or life itself. If as you say God is life then we know 2 things: 1) God exists. 2) You are more interested in the ASCII characters G-o-d than you are in the idea of God. As to what he can do, there are some limitations in the world he created, I'm not talking about the world God created, I'm interested in the limitations of God Himself, I'm interested in how God can do what He can do and why He can't do what He can't do, and if God really does exist then I have no doubt He would be even more interested in how He works than I am. And if the God theory can not even come close to explain one bit of that (and it can't) then it has not explained anything at all, it just adds pointless wheels within wheels that accomplish absolutely nothing. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence
Hi John Clark No, God created the human race. So the human race cannot be God. IMHO God is the uncreated infinite intelligence behind/before/beyond/within Creation itself. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/4/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: John Clark Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-04, 10:20:44 Subject: Re: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 8:39 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: From: Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net God can be thought of as cosmic intelligence And if humans are the only intelligence in the cosmos (and they might be) then the human race is God. or life itself. If as you say God is life then we know 2 things: 1) God exists. 2) You are more interested in the ASCII characters G-o-d than you are in the idea of God. As to what he can do, there are some limitations in the world he created, I'm not talking about the world God created, I'm interested in the limitations of God Himself, I'm interested in how God can do what He can do and why He can't do what He can't do, and if God really does exist then I have no doubt He would be even more interested in how He works than I am. And if the God theory can not even come close to explain one bit of that (and it can't) then it has not explained anything at all, it just adds pointless wheels within wheels that accomplish absolutely nothing. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: God created the human race. And when God asks Himself the question Why have I always existed, why haven't I always not existed? what answer in his omniscience does He come up with? God is the uncreated infinite intelligence There was once a patent issued for a combination rat trap and potato peeler and people laugh about that, but using the exact same organ for both excretory and reproductive purposes does not seem very intelligent to me either, much less infinitely intelligent. And putting the blood vessels and nerves for the retina of the eye in front not in the back so the light must pass through them to get to the light sensitive cells also does not seem very smart; no engineer in his right mind would place the gears to move the film in a camera so that the light must pass through the gears before hitting the film. That's not the sort of thing you'd expect God to do, but it's exactly what you'd expect Evolution to do. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence
Hi John Clark God can be thought of as cosmic intelligence or life itself. As to what he can do, there are some limitations in the world he created, for that world is contingent and so contains some missing pieces, misfits, defects, all of that stuff. Crap happens. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/3/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: John Clark Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-31, 12:28:15 Subject: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 4:58 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:? ? God is necessary because He runs the whole show. And when in His omniscience God asks Himself How is it that I can run the whole show? How is it that I am able to do anything that I want to do? How do my powers work?, what answer does He come up with? The religious have become adept at dodging that question with bafflegab but the fact remains that if you can't provide a substantive answer then the God theory explains absolutely positively nothing. ? ? John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence
Hi John Clark JOHN: That implies that you CAN think of a way that a bunch of cells in your skull squirting out neurotransmitter chemicals can produce subjectivity. What is that way, what vital ingredient does a? neurotransmitter chemical in a brain have that a electron in a chip does not have? ROGER: Life. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/31/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: John Clark Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-30, 15:46:03 Subject: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: ? The self is subjective and I can think of?o way that objective machine codes and silicon chips could produce that. That implies that you CAN think of a way that a bunch of cells in your skull squirting out neurotransmitter chemicals can produce subjectivity. What is that way, what vital ingredient does a? neurotransmitter chemical in a brain have that a electron in a chip does not have? The self must be alive and conscious, two functions impossible to implement on silicon in binary code. Then silicon is lacking something vital that carbon and hydrogen atoms have. In other words you believe in vitalism. I don't. ? Personally I believe that life cannot be created, it simply is/was/and ever shall be, beyond spacetime ? Translated from the original bafflegab: Life does not exist in a place or at a time. And that is clearly incorrect.? So the universe and all life was produced as a thought in the mind of God If you can't explain how God did this then you really haven't explained anything at all and haven't given God very much to do, He must be infinitely bored. If you don't like the word God replace it above with supreme monad or perhaps cosmic mind. How about replacing it with a big I don't know. Not knowing is a perfectly respectable state to be in, unlike pretending to explained something when you really have not. ? John K Clark? ? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: what vital ingredient does a neurotransmitter chemical in a brain have that a electron in a chip does not have? ROGER: Life. Yes life, I was afraid you might say that. It may interest you to know that the Latin word for Life is vita, it's where the word vitalism comes from. And by the way, even creepy creationists don't think neurotransmitter chemicals are alive. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence
Hi John Clark No, presumably each software program is different. So the machine is still controlled in various ways by the programmer. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/30/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: John Clark Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-29, 13:42:26 Subject: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 8:58 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: But computers can only do what their programs/hardware tell them to do. If computers only did what their programers told them to do their would be absolutely no point in building computers because they would know what the machines would end up doing before it even started working on the problem. And you can't solve problems without your hardware so I don't see why you expect a computer to. ? To be intelligent they have to be able to make choices?eyond that. We're back to invoking that mystical word choices as if it solves a philosophical absurdity. It does not. They should? be able to beat me at?oker even though they have no poker program.? Why?? You can't play poker if you don't know something about the game and neither can the computer. And you can cry sour grapes all you want about how the computer isn't really intelligent but it will do you no good because at the end of the day the fact remains that the computer has won all your money at poker and you're dead broke. I said it before I'll say it again, if computers don't have intelligence then they have something better. Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. And I would say what's God's theory on how he is able to keep things functioning? ? John K Clark ? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: RE: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence
Hi William R. Buckley OK, DNA is wetware If you like. But I am conscious, as are all living entities, and that's the 1p problem, as I understand it, even for a bacterium, and that cannot be solved because it is indeterminate. To be alive, one must be able to think on one's own, to be able to make choices on one's own, not choices made by soft- or wetware. To have intelligence, one must have a self, and software cannot even emulate that. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/30/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: William R. Buckley Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-29, 13:22:31 Subject: RE: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence Roger: It is my contention, quite to the dislike of biologists generally methinks, that DNA is a physical representation of program. Cells are indeed controlled by software (as represented in wetware form – i.e. DNA). wrb From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Roger Clough Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 10:07 AM To: everything-list Subject: Re: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence Hi Richard Ruquist Pre-ordained is a religious position And we aren't controlled by software. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/29/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-29, 07:37:02 Subject: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence Roger, Do you think that humans do not function in accord with pre-ordained hardware and software? Richard On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 7:31 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: ROGER: Hi Bruno Marchal I don't agree. Machines must function according to their software and hardware, neither of which are their own. BRUNO: A robot can already answer questions ,and talk, about its own software and hardware. The language Smalltalk makes this explicit by a command self, but this can be done in all programming language by the use of a famous diagonalization trick, which I sum up often by: if Dx gives xx, then DD gives DD. DD gives a description of itself. You get self-duplicators and other self-referential construct by generalization of that constructive diagonal. A famous theorem by Kleene justifies its existence for all universal systems. ROGER:?ither the operation follows pre-established rules or it does not. If any operation follows rules, then it cannot come up with anything new, it is merely following instructions so that any such result can be traced back in principle to some algorithm. If any operation does not follow rules, it can only generate gibberish. Which is to say that synthetic statements cannot be generated by analytic thought. More below, but I will stop here for now. -- Did the robot design its hardware ? No. So it is constrained by the hardware. Did the robot write the original software that can self-construct (presumably according to some rules of construction) ? No. And so, machines cannot do anything not intended by the software author in his software program and constrained by the hardware. What you are missing here is the aspect of free will or at least partly free will. Intelligence is the ability to make choices on one's own. That means freely, of its own free will. Following no rules of logic. Transcending logic, not limited by it. BRUNO: Do you really believe that Mandelbrot expected the Mandelbrot set? He said itself that it has come as a surprise, despite years of observation of fractals in nature. ROGER: OK, it came intuitively, freely,?e did not arrive at it ?y logic, although it no doubt has its own logic. BRUNO: Very simple program (simple meaning few Ks), can lead to tremendously complex behavior. If you understand the basic of computer science, you understand that by building universal machine, we just don't know what we are doing. To keep them slaves will be the hard work, and the wrong work. This was the issue you brought up before, which at that time I thought was miraculous, the Holy Grail I had been seeking. But on reflection, I no longer believe that.?IMHO anything that??omputer does still must follow its own internal logic, contrained by its?ardware constraints and the constraint of its language, even if those calculations are of infinite complexity. Nothing magical can happen. There ought to be a theorem showing that that must be true. So machines cannot make autonomous decisions, they can only make decisions intended by the software programmer. BRUNO: You hope. Bruno Roger Clough
Re: Re: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence
Hi Richard Ruquist IMHO software alone cannot create life, because life is subjective. So there has to be something else inside the DNA besides software. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/30/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-29, 16:27:17 Subject: Re: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence What is DNA if not software? On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 1:07 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist Pre-ordained is a religious position And we aren't controlled by software. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/29/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-29, 07:37:02 Subject: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence Roger, Do you think that humans do not function in accord with pre-ordained hardware and software? Richard On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 7:31 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: ROGER: Hi Bruno Marchal I don't agree. Machines must function according to their software and hardware, neither of which are their own. BRUNO: A robot can already answer questions ,and talk, about its own software and hardware. The language Smalltalk makes this explicit by a command self, but this can be done in all programming language by the use of a famous diagonalization trick, which I sum up often by: if Dx gives xx, then DD gives DD. DD gives a description of itself. You get self-duplicators and other self-referential construct by generalization of that constructive diagonal. A famous theorem by Kleene justifies its existence for all universal systems. ROGER:?ither the operation follows pre-established rules or it does not. If any operation follows rules, then it cannot come up with anything new, it is merely following instructions so that any such result can be traced back in principle to some algorithm. If any operation does not follow rules, it can only generate gibberish. Which is to say that synthetic statements cannot be generated by analytic thought. More below, but I will stop here for now. -- Did the robot design its hardware ? No. So it is constrained by the hardware. Did the robot write the original software that can self-construct (presumably according to some rules of construction) ? No. And so, machines cannot do anything not intended by the software author in his software program and constrained by the hardware. What you are missing here is the aspect of free will or at least partly free will. Intelligence is the ability to make choices on one's own. That means freely, of its own free will. Following no rules of logic. Transcending logic, not limited by it. BRUNO: Do you really believe that Mandelbrot expected the Mandelbrot set? He said itself that it has come as a surprise, despite years of observation of fractals in nature. ROGER: OK, it came intuitively, freely,?e did not arrive at it ?y logic, although it no doubt has its own logic. BRUNO: Very simple program (simple meaning few Ks), can lead to tremendously complex behavior. If you understand the basic of computer science, you understand that by building universal machine, we just don't know what we are doing. To keep them slaves will be the hard work, and the wrong work. This was the issue you brought up before, which at that time I thought was miraculous, the Holy Grail I had been seeking. But on reflection, I no longer believe that.?IMHO anything that??omputer does still must follow its own internal logic, contrained by its?ardware constraints and the constraint of its language, even if those calculations are of infinite complexity. Nothing magical can happen. There ought to be a theorem showing that that must be true. So machines cannot make autonomous decisions, they can only make decisions intended by the software programmer. BRUNO: You hope. Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/28/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-27, 09:52:32 Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence On 27 Aug 2012, at 13:07, Roger Clough wrote: Hi meekerdb IMHO I don't think that computers can have intelligence because intelligence consists of at least one ability: the ability to make autonomous choices (choices completely of one's own). Computers can do nothing on their own, they can only do what softward and harfdware
RE: Re: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence
This statement is blatant vitalism, and in the traditional (ancient) sense: So there has to be something else inside the DNA besides software. DNA has nothing inside of it that is critical to the message it represents. wrb From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Roger Clough Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 9:13 AM To: everything-list Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence Hi Richard Ruquist IMHO software alone cannot create life, because life is subjective. So there has to be something else inside the DNA besides software. Roger Clough, mailto:rclo...@verizon.net rclo...@verizon.net 8/30/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist mailto:yann...@gmail.com Receiver: everything-list mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com Time: 2012-08-29, 16:27:17 Subject: Re: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence What is DNA if not software? On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 1:07 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist Pre-ordained is a religious position And we aren't controlled by software. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/29/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist mailto:yann...@gmail.com Receiver: everything-list mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com Time: 2012-08-29, 07:37:02 Subject: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence Roger, Do you think that humans do not function in accord with pre-ordained hardware and software? Richard On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 7:31 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: ROGER: Hi Bruno Marchal I don't agree. Machines must function according to their software and hardware, neither of which are their own. BRUNO: A robot can already answer questions ,and talk, about its own software and hardware. The language Smalltalk makes this explicit by a command self, but this can be done in all programming language by the use of a famous diagonalization trick, which I sum up often by: if Dx gives xx, then DD gives DD. DD gives a description of itself. You get self-duplicators and other self-referential construct by generalization of that constructive diagonal. A famous theorem by Kleene justifies its existence for all universal systems. ROGER:燛ither the operation follows pre-established rules or it does not. If any operation follows rules, then it cannot come up with anything new, it is merely following instructions so that any such result can be traced back in principle to some algorithm. If any operation does not follow rules, it can only generate gibberish. Which is to say that synthetic statements cannot be generated by analytic thought. More below, but I will stop here for now. -- Did the robot design its hardware ? No. So it is constrained by the hardware. Did the robot write the original software that can self-construct (presumably according to some rules of construction) ? No. And so, machines cannot do anything not intended by the software author in his software program and constrained by the hardware. What you are missing here is the aspect of free will or at least partly free will. Intelligence is the ability to make choices on one's own. That means freely, of its own free will. Following no rules of logic. Transcending logic, not limited by it. BRUNO: Do you really believe that Mandelbrot expected the Mandelbrot set? He said itself that it has come as a surprise, despite years of observation of fractals in nature. ROGER: OK, it came intuitively, freely,爃e did not arrive at it 燽y logic, although it no doubt has its own logic. BRUNO: Very simple program (simple meaning few Ks), can lead to tremendously complex behavior. If you understand the basic of computer science, you understand that by building universal machine, we just don't know what we are doing. To keep them slaves will be the hard work, and the wrong work. This was the issue you brought up before, which at that time I thought was miraculous, the Holy Grail I had been seeking. But on reflection, I no longer believe that.牋IMHO anything that燼燾omputer does still must follow its own internal logic, contrained by its爃ardware constraints and the constraint of its language, even if those calculations are of infinite complexity. Nothing magical can happen. There ought to be a theorem showing that that must be true. So machines cannot make autonomous decisions, they can only make decisions intended by the software programmer
Re: Re: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence
Hi Stathis Papaioannou Indeed, only I can know that I actually feel pain. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/29/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Stathis Papaioannou Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-28, 09:39:09 Subject: Re: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 11:11 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Stathis Papaioannou Yes, hardware and software cannot feel anything because there is no subject to actually feel anything. There is no I , as in I feel that, there is only sensors and reactive mechanisms. A computer could make the same claim about Roger Clough, who lacks the special magic of silicon semiconductors and therefore cannot possibly feel anything. He might cry out in pain when stuck with a pin but that's just an act with no real feeling behind it. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence
Hi Stathis Papaioannou \ Good point. The argument fails. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/29/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Stathis Papaioannou Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-28, 09:35:36 Subject: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 11:06 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Stathis Papaioannou You are talking about a robot, not a human. At the very least, there is the problem of first person indeterminancy. Nobody (especially the programmer) can really know for example if I am an atheist or theist. For example, I might pretend to be an atheist then change my mind. You assume the thing that you set out to prove: that a computer cannot be intelligent or conscious. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence
Hi Richard Ruquist Pre-ordained is a religious position And we aren't controlled by software. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/29/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-29, 07:37:02 Subject: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence Roger, Do you think that humans do not function in accord with pre-ordained hardware and software? Richard On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 7:31 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: ROGER: Hi Bruno Marchal I don't agree. Machines must function according to their software and hardware, neither of which are their own. BRUNO: A robot can already answer questions ,and talk, about its own software and hardware. The language Smalltalk makes this explicit by a command self, but this can be done in all programming language by the use of a famous diagonalization trick, which I sum up often by: if Dx gives xx, then DD gives DD. DD gives a description of itself. You get self-duplicators and other self-referential construct by generalization of that constructive diagonal. A famous theorem by Kleene justifies its existence for all universal systems. ? ROGER:?ither the operation follows pre-established rules or it does not. ? If any operation follows rules, then it cannot come up with anything new, it is merely following instructions so that any such result can be traced back in principle to some algorithm. ? If any operation does not follow rules, it can only generate gibberish. Which is to say that synthetic statements cannot be generated by analytic thought. More below, but I will stop here for now. -- Did the robot design its hardware ? No. So it is constrained by the hardware. Did the robot write the original software that can self-construct (presumably according to some rules of construction) ? No. And so, machines cannot do anything not intended by the software author in his software program and constrained by the hardware. What you are missing here is the aspect of free will or at least partly free will. Intelligence is the ability to make choices on one's own. That means freely, of its own free will. Following no rules of logic. Transcending logic, not limited by it. BRUNO:? Do you really believe that Mandelbrot expected the Mandelbrot set? He said itself that it has come as a surprise, despite years of observation of fractals in nature. ? ROGER:? OK, it came intuitively, freely,?e did not arrive at it ?y logic, although it no doubt has its own logic. BRUNO: Very simple program (simple meaning few Ks), can lead to tremendously complex behavior. If you understand the basic of computer science, you understand that by building universal machine, we just don't know what we are doing. To keep them slaves will be the hard work, and the wrong work. ? This was the issue you brought up before, which at that time I thought was miraculous, the Holy Grail I had been seeking. But on reflection, I no longer believe that.?IMHO anything that??omputer does still must follow its own internal logic, contrained by its?ardware constraints and the constraint of its language, even if those calculations are of infinite complexity. Nothing magical can happen. There ought to be a theorem showing that that must be true.? So machines cannot make autonomous decisions, they can only make decisions intended by the software programmer. BRUNO: You hope. Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/28/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-27, 09:52:32 Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence On 27 Aug 2012, at 13:07, Roger Clough wrote: Hi meekerdb IMHO I don't think that computers can have intelligence because intelligence consists of at least one ability: the ability to make autonomous choices (choices completely of one's own). Computers can do nothing on their own, they can only do what softward and harfdware tells them to do. Another, closely related, reason, is that there must be an agent that does the choosing, and IMHO the agent has to be separate from the system. Godel, perhaps, I speculate. I will never insist on this enough. All the G?el's stuff shows that machines are very well suited for autonomy. In a sense, most of applied computer science is used to help controlling what can really become uncontrollable and too much autonomous, a bit like children education. Computers are not stupid, we work a lot for making them so. Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
RE: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence
Roger: It is my contention, quite to the dislike of biologists generally methinks, that DNA is a physical representation of program. Cells are indeed controlled by software (as represented in wetware form – i.e. DNA). wrb From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Roger Clough Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 10:07 AM To: everything-list Subject: Re: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence Hi Richard Ruquist Pre-ordained is a religious position And we aren't controlled by software. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/29/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist mailto:yann...@gmail.com Receiver: everything-list mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com Time: 2012-08-29, 07:37:02 Subject: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence Roger, Do you think that humans do not function in accord with pre-ordained hardware and software? Richard On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 7:31 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: ROGER: Hi Bruno Marchal I don't agree. Machines must function according to their software and hardware, neither of which are their own. BRUNO: A robot can already answer questions ,and talk, about its own software and hardware. The language Smalltalk makes this explicit by a command self, but this can be done in all programming language by the use of a famous diagonalization trick, which I sum up often by: if Dx gives xx, then DD gives DD. DD gives a description of itself. You get self-duplicators and other self-referential construct by generalization of that constructive diagonal. A famous theorem by Kleene justifies its existence for all universal systems. � ROGER:燛ither the operation follows pre-established rules or it does not. � If any operation follows rules, then it cannot come up with anything new, it is merely following instructions so that any such result can be traced back in principle to some algorithm. � If any operation does not follow rules, it can only generate gibberish. Which is to say that synthetic statements cannot be generated by analytic thought. More below, but I will stop here for now. -- Did the robot design its hardware ? No. So it is constrained by the hardware. Did the robot write the original software that can self-construct (presumably according to some rules of construction) ? No. And so, machines cannot do anything not intended by the software author in his software program and constrained by the hardware. What you are missing here is the aspect of free will or at least partly free will. Intelligence is the ability to make choices on one's own. That means freely, of its own free will. Following no rules of logic. Transcending logic, not limited by it. BRUNO:� Do you really believe that Mandelbrot expected the Mandelbrot set? He said itself that it has come as a surprise, despite years of observation of fractals in nature. � ROGER:� OK, it came intuitively, freely,爃e did not arrive at it 燽y logic, although it no doubt has its own logic. BRUNO: Very simple program (simple meaning few Ks), can lead to tremendously complex behavior. If you understand the basic of computer science, you understand that by building universal machine, we just don't know what we are doing. To keep them slaves will be the hard work, and the wrong work. � This was the issue you brought up before, which at that time I thought was miraculous, the Holy Grail I had been seeking. But on reflection, I no longer believe that.牋IMHO anything that燼燾omputer does still must follow its own internal logic, contrained by its爃ardware constraints and the constraint of its language, even if those calculations are of infinite complexity. Nothing magical can happen. There ought to be a theorem showing that that must be true.� So machines cannot make autonomous decisions, they can only make decisions intended by the software programmer. BRUNO: You hope. Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net mailto:+rclo...@verizon.net 8/28/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-27, 09:52:32 Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence On 27 Aug 2012, at 13:07, Roger Clough wrote: Hi meekerdb IMHO I don't think that computers can have intelligence because intelligence consists of at least one ability: the ability to make autonomous choices (choices completely of one's own). Computers can do nothing on their own, they can only
Re: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence
On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 1:22:38 PM UTC-4, William R. Buckley wrote: Cells are indeed controlled by software (as represented in wetware form – i.e. DNA). It isn't really clear exactly what controls what in a living cell. I can say that cars are controlled by traffic signals, clocks, and calendars. To whatever we ascribe control, we only open up another level of unexplained control beneath it. What makes DNA readable to a ribosome? What makes anything readable to anything? Sense is irreducible. No software can control anything, even itself, unless something has the power to make sense of it as software and the power to execute that sense within itself as causally efficacious motive. Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/rs-VsPOMIRsJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence
What is DNA if not software? On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 1:07 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist Pre-ordained is a religious position And we aren't controlled by software. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/29/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-29, 07:37:02 *Subject:* Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence Roger, Do you think that humans do not function in accord with pre-ordained hardware and software? Richard On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 7:31 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: ROGER: Hi Bruno Marchal I don't agree. Machines must function according to their software and hardware, neither of which are their own. BRUNO: A robot can already answer questions ,and talk, about its own software and hardware. The language Smalltalk makes this explicit by a command self, but this can be done in all programming language by the use of a famous diagonalization trick, which I sum up often by: if Dx gives xx, then DD gives DD. DD gives a description of itself. You get self-duplicators and other self-referential construct by generalization of that constructive diagonal. A famous theorem by Kleene justifies its existence for all universal systems. � ROGER:燛ither the operation follows pre-established rules or it does not. � If any operation follows rules, then it cannot come up with anything new, it is merely following instructions so that any such result can be traced back in principle to some algorithm. � If any operation does not follow rules, it can only generate gibberish. Which is to say that synthetic statements cannot be generated by analytic thought. More below, but I will stop here for now. -- Did the robot design its hardware ? No. So it is constrained by the hardware. Did the robot write the original software that can self-construct (presumably according to some rules of construction) ? No. And so, machines cannot do anything not intended by the software author in his software program and constrained by the hardware. What you are missing here is the aspect of free will or at least partly free will. Intelligence is the ability to make choices on one's own. That means freely, of its own free will. Following no rules of logic. Transcending logic, not limited by it. BRUNO:� Do you really believe that Mandelbrot expected the Mandelbrot set? He said itself that it has come as a surprise, despite years of observation of fractals in nature. � ROGER:� OK, it came intuitively, freely,爃e did not arrive at it 燽y logic, although it no doubt has its own logic. BRUNO: Very simple program (simple meaning few Ks), can lead to tremendously complex behavior. If you understand the basic of computer science, you understand that by building universal machine, we just don't know what we are doing. To keep them slaves will be the hard work, and the wrong work. � This was the issue you brought up before, which at that time I thought was miraculous, the Holy Grail I had been seeking. But on reflection, I no longer believe that.牋IMHO anything that燼燾omputer does still must follow its own internal logic, contrained by its爃ardware constraints and the constraint of its language, even if those calculations are of infinite complexity. Nothing magical can happen. There ought to be a theorem showing that that must be true.� So machines cannot make autonomous decisions, they can only make decisions intended by the software programmer. BRUNO: You hope. Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net +rclo...@verizon.net 8/28/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-27, 09:52:32 Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence On 27 Aug 2012, at 13:07, Roger Clough wrote: Hi meekerdb IMHO I don't think that computers can have intelligence because intelligence consists of at least one ability: the ability to make autonomous choices (choices completely of one's own). Computers can do nothing on their own, they can only do what softward and harfdware tells them to do. Another, closely related, reason, is that there must be an agent that does the choosing, and IMHO the agent has to be separate from the system. Godel, perhaps, I speculate. I will never insist on this enough. All the G?el's stuff shows that machines are very well suited for autonomy. In a sense, most of applied computer science is used to help
Re: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 11:11 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Stathis Papaioannou Yes, hardware and software cannot feel anything because there is no subject to actually feel anything. There is no I , as in I feel that, there is only sensors and reactive mechanisms. A computer could make the same claim about Roger Clough, who lacks the special magic of silicon semiconductors and therefore cannot possibly feel anything. He might cry out in pain when stuck with a pin but that's just an act with no real feeling behind it. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
